# Suggestions on infractions and bans



## Ether's Bane (Aug 4, 2011)

1) *Institute stepladder bans.* For instance:

15 infractions: 1-week ban
30 infractions: 2-week ban
45 infractions: 1-month ban
50 infractions: Permaban

2) As with the above, *revoke privileges as the member accumulates infractions*. I personally suggest:

15 infractions: Loss of posting privileges in ASB, Mafia, Safari Zone, and Roleplay. If someone in a current battle/mafia game gets to 15 infractions, a mod or admin will inform the relevant referee/GM, and the member with the infractions is DQ'd/killed.
30 infractions: The above, as well as loss of access to the CC and Serious Business
45 infractions: The above, as well as loss of access to Site and Forum Discussion, and loss of posting privileges in everything but the Pokemon boards, Announcements, Forum Help, Miscellaneous, Insanity, Entertainment, and Forum Games.

Each of these will expire when the relevant infractions expire.

I've put up a poll for you guys to vote on, if you have an opinion. Of course, replies are welcome, too.


----------



## ultraviolet (Aug 4, 2011)

... why, exactly? You haven't really given a reason as to why you think these changes should be made. :o Generally when someone's infracted they stop doing what they're doing and they're not really a problem again; only in a few cases we've had someone who waited until the infractions expired and then did something wrong again.

I'd much prefer we institute visible infractions for non-moderators because I like things to be transparent, but eh.


----------



## Adriane (Aug 4, 2011)

I can't see this at all. It's really not that hard to get 15 points (in which losing ASB and mafia would be pretty severe) but it's also relatively hard to get 50 (a permanent ban). About the only point-based restriction I would support is the original 30-point CC/DH revoking (which I am not even sure is in effect).

We really try to only ban real troublemakers, of which we tend to have relatively few. I _would_ like to see warnings disappear in their entirety (since it really is difficult to get 50 points), and I am mixed on public infractions (leaning toward yes).


----------



## Tailsy (Aug 4, 2011)

I'd vastly prefer public infractions. This system you've created seems too fiddly to ever be totally functional.

Also, I think warnings are useful!


----------



## Adriane (Aug 4, 2011)

surskitty said:


> I'd vastly prefer public infractions. This system you've created seems too fiddly to ever be totally functional.
> 
> Also, I think warnings are useful!


Warnings just create problems. "Do I give a warning or an infraction?" "I can't give a warning for this!" "I think they should've gotten a warning instead of an infraction..." 

It's basically a free pass when infractions already _expire_ (usually in a week!) It's pointless unless we have someone who just double posts or spams five times within a week despite being warned/infracted for each time.


----------



## Butterfree (Aug 4, 2011)

Yeah, you haven't really given any reason why this would be superior to the current system.

The idea, currently, is basically that most people who are new to forums end up inadvertently breaking some rules and I'm not too keen on the idea of punishing them for it with something like a ban. When people are banned, I want it to be because they're genuine repeat troublemakers. People who don't want to break rules are sufficiently deterred just by getting infractions that tell them they've done something wrong; you don't need to temporarily ban them or restrict them from certain forums just to rub it in.

Warnings exist for when people, say, bump some thread because they didn't think to check the last post date - something clearly inadvertent where they only need a reminder that this isn't allowed, as opposed to something that clearly stems from just failing to consider the rules altogether.


----------

